Quoting Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>:
>
> However, the HTML-A11Y-TF felt compelled to formally object to HTML5
> Last Call unless longdesc was included as a conforming feature, and
> WAI are now apparently working on a new aria-describedat attribute to
> provide the same function.
It is truly unfortunate that you cannot get to the point of
understanding that "Universal Design" never is universal, and at some
point accommodation is required. Numerous people have attempted to
explain this to you, but you remain unconvinced. So be it.
>
> Is anyone planning to write a change proposal arguing against allowing
> ARIA to reference @hidden content? Or can the HTMLWG agree amicable
> consensus on this issue and move on?
I will. Your proposal does nothing to address the 3 key requirements
that have been previously outlined, including the one of
discover-ability and the ability to provide the end user with the
option to consume or not consume the longer textual description.
Despite your assertion of "Universal Design" as the best path forward,
you seek to have a Change Proposal that shifts the entire
responsibility of access to the Accessibility API, failing to
acknowledge that the majority of disabled users don't actually use
tools that take advantage of the AAPIs. The proposed "solution" is a
non-solution for sighted users with cognitive disabilities, or others
who might require a longer textual description for whatever reason.
Finally, and most critically, your proposal completely runs afoul of
tab-focus, and the impact that has on keyboard only users, screen
magnification users, etc. You cannot put focus on a tab-focusable
item (derived by HTML rich content being "preserved" in some hidden
container) that is not on screen and hope to not introduce complexity
and confusion to sighted users. For example, you cannot explain how a
screen magnifier user would examine each cell of table data supplied
in replacement to a pie-chart or bar-chart.
The real answer is that it is the User Agents, and not the mark-up
code that is lacking here. Since it is beyond the scope of the HTML WG
to prescribe UA behavior, your introduction of a Change Proposal that
destroys existing backward compatibility by promoting an untried and
completely unsupported "Hocus-Pocus" solution is actively harmful to
end users.
JF